OH2: Strong chemical odor on knock-and-talk was exigency

When defendant opened his door after a knock-and-talk, the officers smelled the strong chemical odor of a meth lab, and that justified their entry on exigent circumstances. State v. Parson, 2010 Ohio 989, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 800 (2d Dist. March 12, 2010).*

The search warrant for evidence of the “drug trade” was not overbroad. State v. Ruscoe, 119 Conn. App. 834, 119 Conn. App. 834, 989 A.2d 667 (2010).*

Defendant’s stop on the street was unjustified. “Detective Woyma testified that the police suspected Williams and the two persons he was with of drug activity because they were ‘huddled’ together near a corner known for drug activity and tried to walk away when the police arrived. Neither fact justifies an investigatory stop.” State v. Williams, 2010 Ohio 901, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 765 (8th Dist. March 11, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.